On Tuesday 18 February 2014 17:11:43 Sachin Kamat wrote:
> On 18 February 2014 16:33, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 16:27:54 Rahul Sharma wrote:
> >>
> >> +static struct map_desc exynos5260_iodesc[] __initdata = {
> >> + {
> >> + .virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS,
> >> + .pfn = __phys_to_pfn(EXYNOS5260_PA_SYSRAM_NS),
> >> + .length = SZ_4K,
> >> + .type = MT_DEVICE,
> >> + },
> >> +};
> > As I commented before, I think we really shouldn't do this any more: There
> > is no excuse why you still need to add SoC specific code here. Please put
> > the SYSRAM into DT and make a proper abstraction for it so you don't have
> > to modify the kernel every time a new SoC variant comes out.
>
> Do we have any bindings already defined for this kind of stuff or is
> this implemented in
> any other platform/architecture for reference?
>
It depends on how the sram is used. There is a generic binding in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/sram.txt that may be appropriate here.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
